Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

tv   [untitled]    May 13, 2012 4:30am-5:00am PDT

4:30 am
standing before you. staff and multiple claims in an adversarial tone that our claims are false. however, what we have found are the claims their false are the ones presented to us with various inaccuracies. it's difficult for us to work directly with the sponsor because we feel there is no good faith. we feel that would be an unapproved restructure by the sponsor to mentored 66 greenwich street. as you can see, there's already a large amount of open space. we asked simply for president fn favor -- i will read a few of them off here. [reading names]
4:31 am
>> members of the commission, i'm when kaiser and i along with my wife -- my wife and i are the owners of 28 1/6 number three which is being significantly impacted by this roof deck. -- we have tried to work with them but have been rebuffed numerous times. there is a short video i would like to play that gives the sponsors approach to neighborhood and community development.
4:32 am
>> this is the property i'd make and that moving into. i could -- you could make a lot of money if you know what you're doing. that's what i'm here to tell you how to do it. a one-bedroom lower unit on the bottom and two levels on the upstairs unit. -- to level -- the idea is to make a single family home. technically speaking, its two units and technically [inaudible] without much difficulty and understanding how the building department works, i think it's safe to say i can raise this whole area of the house up to
4:33 am
levels and take up all the space. knowing it had two units, the problem is the plan at the apartment site 8 -- the planning department decided it wasn't a unit -- we finally got the units merged so now it is a to unit building. this area here will also become interior space and we will combine the dining room and square this off as well as the whole master suites. once this area here is a combined which is above the outdoor area was standing in, it's going to make this room flow well. once it is floating in [inaudible] -- once it is filled in. [tone]
4:34 am
[inaudible] you could have this upper units be up to 4000 square feet. when you get your, you get peekaboo views of pacific heights. here's the latter. i get up on to the letter, i will give the panoramic views. [tone] [inaudible] president fong: next speaker. >> i was the one who did the paperwork because my husband wasn't available. you have heard me before getting nervous in front of the. would you restart it?
4:35 am
[inaudible] hist >> we need you to be at the microphone. -- >> you missed how it such a wonderful place to make investments and make money because that was when does singer went. -- zinger. >> i own and occupy 2729 baker street, a cottage built in within the bloc. except for a narrow passage, i have no street frontage. as i look out my front door, i
4:36 am
see to the left of me in the adjoining lot now owned by mr. teed, the rear of his building which is already about 12 feet closer to my than that of the building directly in front of me. were the proposed extension with deck to be approved, mr. teed's building would become yet closer to me, approximately 30 feet from the northern corner of my house front. compounding the psychological in your face effect of the proposed projection with dec and the damage it would do to the shared an open green's base of all the neighbors is the noise effect. in my remaining years of life, i
4:37 am
do not relish the prospect of being compelled to listen either to deck party noise weather in the form of loud conversation or high decibels music nor of being subjected to the health hazards of cigarette or cigar smoke blown in my direction. finally, as a native san franciscan and retired san francisco public school teacher, george washington high-school, i find it shameful that to flats which would have made fine homes for two families with magnificent outdoor play space for children should be sacrificed to this track called
4:38 am
a reconfiguration through a rear yard extension. thank you. president fong: next speaker please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live next door to the property under review. my family has lived on baker street for five generations. i've known the prior owner of the two family flats at 2735 my whole life. he died in february of 2011 and his son sold the property to mr. teed in april. in july, a story polls were installed in the backyard of the lower level showing the outline of the planned extension. at the july pre application meeting, several neighbors met mr. to eat, his girlfriend, amanda, mr. t's expediter and
4:39 am
the first architect. -- mr. teed's expediter. within 15 minutes of the meeting start, henry asked for a show of hands of how many neighbors approved of the conversion of two units to one. since none of the neighbors had seen the plan before the meeting, we did not respond to the vote call but ask questions. mr. teed took us through the two units and explained how he planned to add extension to the lower level and a roof deck on top. it was clear from the neighbors feedback that this rear yard extension negatively affected all six of the rear yard neighbors. the rear yard neighbors haven't short -- have enjoyed our shared open space and this extension would cut deeply into the shared open space. additionally, at back on top of the extension would create an
4:40 am
elevated stage for partying which would create -- which would impede the privacy of all neighbors. we raised these issues at the pre application meeting and several times following the meeting in e-mail's. i have met mr. teed only once. he has responded in a hostile manner to e-mail's i have sent on behalf of the neighbors. he had his lawyers and a threatening level -- threatening letter in december which demanded the neighbors comments be withdrawn or he would file a lawsuit. basically he was demanding we not take part in this commissions process of public participation and input. the neighbors have attempted to meet with mr. teed at supervisor farrell's office and keep refuse to participate. you will probably hear after this that mr. teed's staff has tried to meet with the neighbors, but this is simply not true. you have read his e-mail and seen the manner in which he has
4:41 am
responded to the neighbors. the proposed extension is out of character with the block and contrary to the spirit and intent of the guidelines and is definitely extraordinary and inappropriate. thank you for your consideration. >> i am on the advisory board of the cow hollow association. the association opposes the project as proposed. we attended the pre application meeting and voice our concern for this rear horizontal extension. continuing our key areas of concern on not only with the rear horizontal extension and deck, but the rear yard that contributes to the open space and proposed addition of two elevated? , both the respect and horizontal extension back,
4:42 am
increasing malaise. i'm going to speak on the extension deck which would reduce the open space of the adjacent properties. these properties are small in size due to their corner lots configuration, their proximity to the corner, the fact that they are nonconforming, such as the cottage in the rear, or their east-west orientation, not the north-south. the subject property lot is 137.5, equal to the north-south orientation. one of the key issues in the standards adopted by the planning commission in 2001 is the neighborhood character as perceived from the block phase
4:43 am
as well as the rear facade of the buildings which includes enjoyment of the mid-block open space. rear yards are public and that they contribute to the interior blocked open space shared by all residents of the block. intrusions into their rear yard, even though permitted by the planning code may not be appropriate failed to respect the mitt blocked open space and have adverse impact on adjacent building. -- mid-block open space. this particular series of buildings is all in a row. the three buildings to the north of the subject property formed that line of development this discretionarywould alter that. the authority to modify the proposed project. in a case for the adjoining properties are so dissimilar, special consideration must be given to proposals that intrude upon and significantly impact
4:44 am
the existing interior block open spaces. thank you. >> good afternoon, the pressures. i am a homeowner at 2825 silver street and my wife and i have lived there for the last 20 years. prior to that, my wife's family lived there and was born and raised in that house. it abuts mr. t's lot from the south and the car lot. it is directly to the last -- mr. teed's lot. see the impact it would have to the other families property and my lot, the structure would over it stand -- since we use that part of our backyard as a sitting area and patio -- i call
4:45 am
it my little getaway grotto -- the light in the area would be effected in the privacy and character of the block would be significantly affected by that edition. we raised our four children there. if it were 10 years ago and he was making the application, i would be protesting because of all of the new windows that would be broken while they're playing baseball out there but i'm here to support my neighbors and the fact that the mid block area and how this would counter in the guidelines of the cow hollow association. -- cal hollow association. maria and i are residential real-estate brokers here in san francisco and we know mr. teed and we have worked with him. our relationship has been on a professional level very cordial and i'm envious and happy about
4:46 am
the success he has had with his remodeling. he does great work and after this afternoon, and even more impressed by his on-camera skills as a pitchman. i respect what he wants to do, but it is obvious given the character of the neighbor and our enjoyment of the neighborhood, this addition would fly in the furthermore, as represented buyers and sellers in the cal hollow area, it has always been my duty and mission to advise people of the guidelines of the cal hollow association. from a professional standpoint, if you do grant this addition, it would make my job a lot easier as a real-estate broker because that would gut the guidelines and i could tell potential buyers and sellers hey, do what everyone.
4:47 am
extension, deck, no problem. the guidelines don't mean anything anymore. as a longtime member of the neighborhood, that would be a real tragedy. thank you. >> good afternoon, everyone. i am a resident of 2727 baker right next door. i'm a fifth generation native san franciscan. i grew up in the sunset. things change over the generations. when we grew up, we all went to catholic school where the teachers were nuns. now the nuns are all retired and gone. my kids go to a chinese american international, just a couple of late we cut -- just a couple blocks away and they are learning manner in there. what is important is that change comes about in a fair manner in a way that follows establish rules and policies. i have not met the developer.
4:48 am
i'm only familiar with the other projects he's got going on and i have seen his big billboards a couple of blocks away. the people he rented the property to, i know them well and they said he is going to do and say anything to get the project approved. this project takes advantage of the community, detracting from the surrounding properties to increase the retail value for the developer. the local community guidelines haven't been followed. the developer has said he's going to circumvent city guidelines and has been openly hostile to everybody, particularly the neighbors and their input. the problem san francisco has with family flight is well documented. there are a lot of issues about that. my sons will be here when they get out of school wi they have a civic meet for their citizenship merit badge. unfortunately they will miss this but they will see one of the other agenda items.
4:49 am
i hope these young san franciscans learn while the senate debate process can be messy, progress moves forward in a way that's fair to the community and support of bally of wealthy developers but families in the community. -- not only of wealthy developers, but families in the community. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. thank you for cms and hearing aid. i'm here with my husband -- thank you for seeing less and hearing us. i'm here with my husband. we are not directly impacted in that we are a little farther up the street. in that sense, you can think of us as being a little bit neutral. but we have been kept abreast of what has been going on and we were invited to the first meeting that was described. i am encouraging you all to give
4:50 am
this a second look was the strong recommendation that all parties go back and reach a better compromise because we have a nice community. certainly think it's come up, people want to extend or go up in height, but we all talk and we are careful about each other's feelings and each others' sensibilities and lifestyles. we are all nice to each other as neighbors. when i see that e-mail's going back and forth at the meeting, just sitting here having mr. teed laugh during this whole process is a little disconcerting and it makes me feel like there's not a lot of respect for the neighbors or the whole process. i would like -- my wish is that you have everybody go back and make sure they reach a better
4:51 am
compromise than what is going on right now because i don't see it at all. thank you. president fong: additional speakers in favor of dr. project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm speaking on behalf of the permit applicants, mr. teed. forgive me if i start speaking fast. that was a wealth of complaints and issues brought up, some for the first time. i want to address the few things and we also have the architect here who can address any questions and speak to the specific rebuttals on representations that have been made about the character of the neighborhood and consistency with the code. when i first want to point out is there is a comment made by the attorney said said the dr was successful. this was not a discretionary
4:52 am
review case. that was done voluntarily by mr. teeth. for nine months, his team members and himself -- mr. teed. his team members communicated with neighbors and attached to both of the responses, there's a bullet pointless that summarizes all the changes that came as a result of the neighborhood outreach. i would like to rush through that so you have the context that this is not some developer refusing to listen to neighborhood concerns. concerns have been taken seriously by every member of the team. both sides of the rear addition were polled in to appease the jason neighbors. there is a shadow kinds -- shadows that conducted to demonstrate light and air were not at stake for anyone involved in the existing area. the existing bay windows that face the very -- the other bay windows directly so he could
4:53 am
increase the privacy and address the concerns for privacy about his daughter's bedroom. a large tree over 40 feet tall was removed from the center of the rear yard to increase the light and air for northern neighbors and a map will show you how much open space there really is in the area now. the roof deck was recessed within the building envelope and the exterior said there would be no penthouse required. some people complained about a penthouse and you will see there is a penthouse on these plans. in fact, there was an extensive roof deck and penthouse and you can see from the photographs his penthouse and desk -- penthouse and dec a one that reached by this respect. we find this contention puzzling because he himself is doing everything he doesn't want mr. teat to do. the lawyers tend -- mr. teed to
4:54 am
do. he said he would circumvent the law but that's not what he said on the video. but that is what they have done -- they took it to residential units have lived as a single family comedy is outraged that mr. teed may be the same thing when he never represented that would be his intention. he did withdraw the and the merger because he didn't think it would be approved by the neighbors for the city. the intent is to maintain two residential units. there were roof deck railing that the north and south of the lot line to maximize light and air concerns. the entire roof was fire rated so guard rails could be eliminated in favor of the least visually-impacting rail system as possible, all glasses will we're doing. the northern light well was greatly expanded by removing mass from the existing building.
4:55 am
a courtesy light well was created for the side at lite light rail and there were numerous flus and events decreased because they will use hydronic heat to a light concerns from the neighbors. the request for a merger was withdrawn. there was an offer to build a privacy screen to benefit mr. costar. he said if i wanted a scream, i could build up myself. great concessions were done but we had a couple of snags. a couple of the filers came to a position that there was no compromise that could be agreed to. the only thing that would satisfy them was abandoning that portion of the project and that was not acceptable to mr. teed who has invested significant time and money into the prospect already. i want to object to the video. it's clear from the way you saw
4:56 am
that it had been edited without any representation about the editing. it showed more than the house that question. it showed five different properties he's worked on as a realtor and i think is very misleading and an unfortunate thing that tactic would be used. i believe the video was for it to you that that benefits us and you will see he does say he intends to live in this house and it is a statement of intention. if things don't play out the way he wants to, he may have to change that. if you have specific questions, the architect is here. president fong: speakers in favor of the project, have one speaker in favor of the project sponsor. >> i'm the designer of the
4:57 am
project. open space, let's start there since that seems to be [inaudible] >> i need you to speak into the microphone. >> this is -- this does not block the open space pattern over all. there is a house in the center right behind her niece's house. they just went through a lot to make these on separate lot of their part of the same family. they have full southern exposure on the side because they have an easement and face backyards to the south and all around.
4:58 am
cal hollow guidelines -- we are within them by far. we built to the 45% set back. it could be three stories tall per the guidelines. we are sucked in 3 feet from each side as discussed. one of the arguments about privacy -- people could stand on the proposed deck and -- i don't know which one of these is her window. they live in both units. get into his daughter's unit from the deck. the existing condition is a bay window facing a windows 6 inches away. if someone wanted to get into that window, it would be an
4:59 am
existing condition. we're polling and the railing and 3 feet, far before you try to jump off a back to get into this window, you get a letter out and do it that way. as far as the kaiser's concerns -- this drawing i did, the darker, the higher. this is the subject roof deck. [tone] this is the kaiser's unit. the closest brailling is more than 58 feet away from their windows. -- the closest railing is more than 58 feet away from their windows. he said it was immediately adjacent and it's actually to lot the way. without being too repetitious,